I think you might be in a minority of people that hear "dangerous" and then think about transportation first. My guess would be most people think of danger as violent crimes. At the same time, people are aware of other types of accidental deaths, but may view those differently because they feel they have more control over them.
yeah, I mean, I'm definitely in the minority of what I think. My life is regularly threatened by reckless drivers, and being a strong, tall-ish white dude, I don't get messed with on the street very often.
That said, I think the numbers back up my perspective. Violent crime just isn't what it was back in the seventies, but we're still in the mindset that danger = criminals.
Transportation and crimes are related, if indirectly. In many major cities, it's hard to get a legit job if you don't have a car, because you can't get to work reliably. Folks who live in poverty and don't have access to legit work will do something to make money, and crimes ensue.
Bikes might not be a great solution in these areas -- they're easy to steal and somewhat unreliable due to weather and other factors. And, if somebody already feels that they're taking a risk hiring a poor person... is it going to help if they're showing up sweaty? Perceptions matter on both sides of the equation -- I won't apply for a job if I don't think that I'd last a week.
Rather than focus on the impact of cars, which is a bit of a "boil the ocean" solution, it would be directly impactful to fund a local restauranteur. It makes local jobs, and makes the neighborhood more livable and walkable.
If I had a billion dollars, I'd do an incubator for small, local businesses focused on sustainability, not disruption.
